ORDER : We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 2. The Respondent No. 1 - assessee had imported certain material known as "wood veneers" of various thickness ranging from 0.25 mm to 0.45 mm and these supplies were received from M/s. Pargan Singapore, Singapore. Bill of Entry was filed stating the particular value of the goods as per the invoices raised by the exporter in Singapore. 3. According to the Revenue, the respondent had not disclosed the correct price and it was a case of under-invoice. Four show cause notices were issued alleging under-invoicing and demanding differential duty, etc. Four adjudication orders-in-original were passed confirming the demand of differential duty. 4. It would be pertinent to observe that in support of its case, the Revenue had produced certain documents purported to have been issued by Italian customs authorities as per which the price of these very goods was shown higher by the manufacturer of these goods through whom the goods were purchased by M/s. Pargan Singapore for sale to the assessee. The assessee had challenged the admissibility of these documents in evidence on the ground that they are not authenticated. This argument has been accepted by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘CESTAT’). CESTAT has found that the documents procured by the Revenue do not bear any signatures and are photocopies which are not even attested and accordingly, the assessable value could not be enhanced on the basis of such documents. In arriving at this conclusion, while doubting the genuineness of those documents, the CESTAT has kept in mind the provisions of Section 139 of the Customs Act and has relied upon various judgments of the Tribunal on this issue. 5. After going through the detailed analysis undertaken by the CESTAT in this behalf, we do not find any error therein. 6. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. Appeals dismissed.